Below is an article written by a left-wing activist who called for the impeachment of President George W. Bush. Unlike so many of his comrades, he believes that since Barack Obama is carrying out many of the same policies set in place by his predecessor, Obama deserves to be impeached, as well. While conservatives may disagree with some — though perhaps not all — of the author’s criticisms, he is joining a growing number of leftists and Democrats angered, nervous, or ready to jump-ship on the Obama presidency. A recent poll posted on DailyKos found 13 percent of liberals support impeaching Obama.Whatever their motivation, we applaud their consistency in calling out a president of their own party.If enough conservatives speak out, perhaps a few Congressmen will show the same courage. Click heretosign the petition to impeach Obama. — The Ed.

David Swanson, American Chronicle

Richard Nixon’s White House Counsel John Dean, while Bush was president, predicted that Bush’s successor would be one of two things, either the best or the worst president in history. He, or she, would either undo the damage and prosecute the crimes, or protect the criminals and continue the abuses. Obama has protected the criminals, continued many of the abuses, more firmly established the power to commit those abuses, and expanded abusive powers beyond what Bush ever attempted. I’m not trying to quantify and determine whether Obama has grabbed “more” new abusive powers than Bush did. I’m simply pointing out that, as with previous presidents, Obama has retained the powers bequeathed him and added some…

The Education Department pushes corporatization, privatization, and testing. The trade agreements are all corporate…President Obama is taking the budget from the Bush years, adding to the military, and cutting or freezing everything else. The budgetary crisis in state governments and in people’s homes continues to worsen. The Wall Street and corporate bailouts that Obama helped Bush impose on us have only escalated since Obama moved to the White House…Obama has not added as much to the military budget as Bush did, but he has added to Bush’s largest military budget, enlarging it further each year — and with activist groups and news reports tending to falsely report that he’s cutting it…For a time, Obama had more troops and mercenaries in the field than Bush had ever had.He stood in front of the U.S. Constitution in the National Archives and tossed habeas corpus into the trash bin…This is Bush-Cheney-level secrecy with the pretense that it isn’t. And it’s worse. Obama has set records for rejecting Freedom of Information Act requests and for prosecutions of whistle blowers…

So why not impeach Obama? I clamored for the impeachment of Bush. I say Obama is as bad or worse. Why am I such a corrupt hypocrite that I haven’t built a movement to impeach Obama? Well, I’ll tell you, as I’ve told people more times than I can count. Obama should be impeached and convicted and removed from office. Obama should be prosecuted for his crimes. So should his subordinates. (Emphasis added.) So should his predecessor, his subordinates, and all corporate co-conspirators. The reason I can’t get 20 people into the streets to demand Obama’s impeachment (and if I did, they’d want him impeached for being born in Africa to aliens from Planet Socialism) is that nobody in Congress is even pretending to give a damn. We were able to produce a sizeable movement for impeachment when Bush was in office, because a lot of Democrats in Congress, especially in 2005 and 2006, pretended they were on our side. I say “pretended” as a way to indicate not that they didn’t agree with us, but that they were not committed to trying very hard.

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny” — James Madison, The Federalist Papers, #47.

The New York Times has a pair of chilling stories indicating Barack Obama is considering ignoring provisions of a new law that forbid him from transferring Guantanamo Bay terrorist detainees to the United States or to countries that may not be equipped to prevent their escape. “Several” anonymous White House officials revealed the president may issue a signing statement ignoring these provisions of the law, treating them as though they did not exist. Times reporter Charlie Savage indicated this would represent “a more aggressive use of unilateral executive powers than what he exerted in his first two years in office.”

Congress used the power of the purse to prevent civilian trials for terrorists in U.S. courts. The language, attached to the defense authorization bill, forbids the Defense Department from spending any money to transfer detainees or to enhance U.S. sites to house Gitmo transferees. Another provision requires foreign countries to meet high standards of security before releasing detainees within their borders.

Since the bill authorizes funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the president will not veto it. However, the Times indicates he may ignore these provisions, bypass Congress, and bring accused terrorists to U.S. soil before trying them in civilian courts.

According to the DNI, as of 1 October 2010, of the 598 terrorists released from GITMO and sent to other countries; 81 were confirmed and 69 are suspected of returning to terrorist and insurgent Organizations. The summary estimates 13 were dead, 54 in custody and 81 where still on the loose. The Intelligence Community assesses that that the numbers will increase if more detainees are transferred out of U.S. custody.

Spin

The report attempts to defend the President’s executive order “calling for a comprehensive interagency review of the status of all individuals currently detained at Guantanamo Bay. Every decision to transfer a detainee to a foreign country under this review was made after a full assessment of intelligence and threat information.” Translation; Eric Holder‘s Justice Department will get to decide who goes home.

Although he would not say a word about Iran’s human rights violations after Mahmoud Ahmadinejiad tortured protesters of the stolen presidential election last summer, Barack Obama brought the full weight of the presidential bully pulpit down against 50 people planning to burn the Koran this Saturday. Obama told George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America this morning the would-be Koran-burners’ “stunt” is “completely contrary to our values of Americans…this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance.”

That is an interesting about-face on the right of religious people to exercise the First Amendment. Less than a month ago, he declared his support for the Ground Zero Mosque, telling Muslims at an Iftar dinner:

Let me be clear: As a citizen and as president I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.

He later said he was only reiterating their constitutional rights and “will not comment on the wisdom” of planting a victory mosque atop the graves of 3,000 jihad victims. But he felt no constraint commenting on the “wisdom” of a tiny Christian church burning the Muslims’ “holy” book. Although he showed enthusiasm for the First Amendment rights of Muslims, he tried to sic the local police on Pastor Jones, stating that he found the Dove World Outreach Center’s rights “frustrating”….

How dangerous and unAmerican are Barack Obama’s views? The prosecutor trying a Guantanamo Bay detainee does not want to seat any juror who agrees with them. The Wall Street Journal reported Justice Department attorney Jeff Groharing removed a potential juror from the case of Omar Khadr, who was arrested on an Afghan battlefield after he killed a U.S. soldier, after the juror testified:

"America seemed to lose its status as a beacon of freedom, liberty and justice” through its interrogation methods, secret prisons and extraordinary renditions, said the lieutenant colonel, who couldn’t be named under courtroom rules. “I don’t believe my position is any different from the president’s.”

…Jeff Groharing, a Justice Department attorney who started as the Khadr prosecutor in 2005 when he was a Marine major, used his single peremptory challenge to remove him from the commission.

“He said repeatedly he agrees with the president,” Groharing said."

The lieutenant colonel is correct; his view is, if anything, less inflammatory than Barack Obama’s. Obama condemned the facility, which provided Korans to every inmate, as a violation of American values. All his speeches – from his first stemwinder as an underexperienced presidential candidate to his UN address as president – associated the prison with "torture."

That doesn’t square with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who admitted, "The truth is, it’s probably one of the finest prisons in the world today." But the slander of our troops lives on, sometimes by those who become our troops.